Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:37, 23 May 2013

Tu ne cede malis

		The Austria Barnstar of National Merit
		Presented to User Steeletrap. For tireless editing to improve difficult articles on WP SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You really helped me get on the right track after losing my temper earlier today. (Hope you don't mind I corrected the spelling of my name to Steeletrap. Steeletrap (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:LewRockwell.com. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I saw your message to User talk:MastCell which mentioned the previous "PA". (Frankly, MastCell as an admin should mention to you that such complaints are not proper.) Please look at WP:WIAPA. Remarks about the PA of others are not appropriate. But here you've done it again: ‎. These comments do not further constructive discussion. Jeez, I asked you for help in locating the Palmer stuff. You responded. thanked you. Now it's time to discuss using (or not) his stuff. But adding complaints about past behavior that you do not like does not, does not, does not further WP:COOL discussion. Please, please, PLEASE drop the issue of past PA. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Srich. The language on the WP:AGF piece, almost certainly intentional, avoids saying that one needs to assume good faith in all circumstances. Numerous blatant personal attacks and harassment (allegations of sexism; allegations that I am intentionally violating WP policy by knowingly seeking to add OR to my edits; and mockery of my abilities as a master's student, are a few examples of Carol's inexcusable behavior), as perceived by me and another user, constitute, in my judgment, sufficient grounds for not AGF. You can disagree with this but you cannot, given these particular circumstances, allege that I am violating the rules. The LRC page is a mess and will remain so, but not because of anything I did. Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, look at WP:WIAPA. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." is the standard. If you have evidence, you should have posted an ANI back then. But every time you say "She PA'd me" without evidence, you are "violating the rules." What makes it worse is doing so on article talk pages. Such remarks weaken your case, regardless of the issue being discussed. They are ad hominem, nothing more. And they are disruptive. I've begged you before to stop this, but you seem to have chosen to disregard my comments and to scrub your talk page of the messages. When you persist with these remarks, despite these messages, you are intentionally violating WP policy as to PA. You have got to stop. – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry rich, you're wrong on the facts again. I don't "need" to take time to report anything to ANI (did you ask SPECIFICO to do that when he accused Carol of harassment/PAs on his wall?). All I need is evidence, which I have. Carol has ridiculed my capacity for academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:LewRockwell.com&diff=prev&oldid=553662712), accused user SPECIFICO and myself of sexism (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553822485&oldid=553821d981 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553843792&oldid=553842400), and claimed that I am intentionally trying to violate the rules of Misplaced Pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=554006883.) Also note the breathtaking, hilarious irony of you, on the basis of my making accusations of PA without first reporting them to ANI, accusing me of PAs without you personally first reporting me to ANI. Either your criticism applies to yourself at least as much as it does me (more, I'm sure, since you lack evidence), or it's completely unsound. Steeletrap (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

LRC discussion

Your strikeout is noted. I shall revise my remarks accordingly. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

It seems that some of your changes were WP:OR. I am going to do a partial revert because some things were changed without citation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tony. I don't think that's right; but maybe I didn't cite my sources properly? Please point out the specific text where the issue is. Steeletrap (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at the article. I agree with you that thef explication o abortion/gay rights bit -- which, as a matter of fact, were liberal for their time with a public who, by a majority, opposed legal gay relations -- as liberal stances which is OR; my mistake! However, I don't at all see how pointing out that DOMA was passed with a veto-proof majority of OR; isn't that just a matter of reading the roll call (vote was 85-14)? Steeletrap (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mentoring

Steeletrap -- would you like to do some mentoring? You know I've sent IamSwitzerland some messages about edits made. Swiss's editing efforts continue, and some errors are occurring. For example, here: , Swiss put a reference in the heading. WP:HEADING has the guidance which applies; i.e., we do not add links to heading titles. With this guidance in mind, adding the link to the reference in the heading creates style errors. And, as you know, we generally put the references at the end of the supported material. (Also, I wonder if OR is at play; e.g., Swiss has provided a link to a directory of traders & brokers, but are they infact competitors of TradeKing? I leave that to you to evaluate.) So, please take a look at Swiss's edits here and on other pages. I suggest you post a message to Swiss and point out the errors. (And I'm curious as to what kind of response you will get! ) – S. Rich (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you care to send Swiss the message? If not, let me know here. I'll go ahead then and fix the layout errors. – S. Rich (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I welcome Switzerland to the Encyclopedia, but I am too busy to help her or him. Steeletrap (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I had extended a welcome, but the response to me was less than positive. (Accusing me of working for Scottrade? Hardly.) In any case I'll go through the edits and fix up things. – S. Rich (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

AfD notice

That discussion got out of hand. It started off badly with the quote marks (even if not intended as scare quotes). Adding POV (from various parties) only made it worse. I stepped in as an uninvolved, experienced editor to put a stop to it. Do not un-hat that discussion. You are involved and you have less experience than I. (And by uninvolved, I refer to that particular discussion. Making my comments on the AfD page or article talk page does not matter. The effort to notify people of the AfD was poorly done.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Let me add this -- the page for the AfD is the AfD page. It should be discussed no where else. If the mere notice of an AfD engenders a discussion, as it did, it was not well done. Take another look at the Econ Project page. Immediately above our section is an exemplar notice. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

AfD results

Just a thought -- have you considered that your AfD nominations prompt editors to go and spiff up the articles? You may be getting unintended consequences, e.g., better WP coverage of people you don't have the greatest admiration for. (Or is that part of your diabolical plan? ) Well, either way, here is something of interest for you. Deletionism and inclusionism in Misplaced Pages. Enjoy. – S. Rich (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A more neutral, better-sourced page is very much preferable to a bad page, even if no page is (in my view) the best option. Steeletrap (talk)`

Well said. And I'm glad diabolicalness is not part of your motivation (not that I ever thought so). Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Better to say "inaccurate" than false. (Less likely to raise someone's hackles.) Actually, the blog commentor was quoting from Morgan Reynolds, which is worse. – S. Rich (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your comment on the AfD page: . Again, I say well done. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments on talk pages

Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Misplaced Pages needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. On this article talk page you sought to admonish Carolmooredc aboutCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). PA. Your remark was inappropriate. One: it was not one directed towards article improvement. If you are going to admonish another editor, do so on their talk page. Two: the remarks were not PA. (Her remarks were about the editing going on, not the editor.) Please keep in mind that accusing others of PA, but lacking evidence, is PA in itself. Please stop. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry rich. I just don't take these admonitions seriously. The evidence she made a PA is clear as day, and was attested to by user SPECIFICO on that page. Steeletrap (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

How you take my admonitions is up to you. If you had posted the comment to Carolmooredc's talk page that might be a different matter. But the article talk page is the wrong place to do it. I feel like I'm herding cats in this, but at the moment I feel like cracking the whip. Don't make any more such accusations! Yeh-ha!! – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page section headings

Please take a look at WP:TALKNEW. Section headings should be/must be neutral. The section heading you added "==Massive, unjustified deletion of immigration section==" on the Hoppe talk page has a certain tinge to it. Please revise. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's just a relaying of the facts. Maybe you can quibble with "massive", but the reversion is certainly unjustified. Steeletrap (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No. You can state your views in the text. The section heading must must must be neutral. (Also, adding new section headings, which really deal with the same topic (Hoppe on immigration) leads to poor discussion layout. Best to add replies in order. If this it is an entirely new topic, then a new section heading is appropriate. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoppe edit

Thanks for catching my error on the ACLU quote. It was entirely unintentional. – S. Rich (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Usertalk:Carolmooredc

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Usertalk:Carolmooredc. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Please look at WP:WIAPA. In making accusations of PA, without evidence, your remark here is a personal attack. – S. Rich (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your accusations are incorrect (as usual). Have a good day. Steeletrap (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, here is just a sampling of the evidence. Carol has mocked my capacities for academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:LewRockwell.com&diff=prev&oldid=553662712), accused user SPECIFICO and myself of sexism (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553822485&oldid=553821981 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553843792&oldid=553842400), and claimed that I am intentionally trying to violate the rules of Misplaced Pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=554006883.) Steeletrap (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)